Paper detail

The Comparison of Stellar Atomspheric Parameters between LAMOST and APOGEE databases

We have compared the stellar parameters, temperature, gravity and metallicity, between the LAMOST-DR2 and SDSS-DR12/APOGEE database for stars in common. It is found that the LAMOST database provides a better red-clump feature than the APOGEE database in the Teff versus logg diagram. With this advantage, we have separated red clump stars from red giant stars, and attempt to establish the calibrations between the two datasets for the two groups of stars respectively. It shows that there is a good consistency in temperature with a calibration close to the one-to-one line, and we can establish a satisfied metallicity calibration of [Fe/H]_APO=1.18[Fe/H]_APO+0.11 with a scatter of 0.08 dex for both red clump and red giant branch samples. For gravity, there is no any correlation for red clump stars between the two databases, and scatters around the calibrations of red giant stars are substantial. We found two main sources of the scatters of logg for red giant stars. One is a group of stars with $0.00253*Teff-8.67<logg<2.6 locating at the forbidden region, and the other is the contaminated red clump stars, which could be picked out from the unmatched region where stellar metallicity is not consistent with the position in the Teff versus logg diagram. After excluding stars at the two regions, we have established two calibrations for red giant stars, logg_APO=0.000615*Teff_LAMO+0.697*logg_LAMO-2.208$ (sigma=0.150) for [Fe/H]>-1 and logg_APO=0.000874*Teff_LAMO+0.588*logg_LAMO-3.117 (sigma=0.167) for [Fe/H]<-1. The calibrations are valid for stars with Teff=3800-5400 K and logg=0-3.8 dex, and are useful in a work aiming to combine the LAMOST and APOGEE databases in the future study. In addition, we find that an SVM method based on seismic logg is a good way to greatly improve the accuracy of gravity for these two regions at least in the LAMOST database.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.